BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 11

Date of Institution : 21.1.2010

Date of Decision : 29.10.2010

Municipal Council, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Executive Officer.

...Complainant Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Assistant Executive Engineer, PSEB Division, Jaitu.

3. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Sub Divisional Officer, PSEB, Sub Division, Jaitu, District Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Neeraj Maheshwari counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for directing them to withdraw the notice/bill dated 12.9.2009 in the sum of Rs. 3,04,310/- and further directing the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 2,49,807/- to the complainant alongwith interest and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides future interest and costs of the complaint.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the Municipal Council is a consumer of the opposite parties for consumption of electricity having Account No. SL 450001 N. The complainant resolved to increase the connections of the street lights in the town as per need of the people and consequently there has been increase in the existing load of electricity. So, Municipal Council applied to the opposite parties for increase of load from 38.93 KW to 40.92 KW vide letter dated 21.1.2009 and the increase in the load was sanctioned by the opposite parties and necessary charges were deposited by Municipal Council, Jaitu on 22.1.2009. Thereafter, due to financial hardships the complainant could not increase its electricity connections of street lights, so there is no change in the consumption of electricity. On 12.9.2009, the complainant received highly inflated bill of Rs. 3,04,310/- in which Rs. 2,49,807/- are shown as sundry charges which is illegal and without any basis. The complainant lodged a protest with the opposite parties vide its memo No. 2590 and opposite parties sent the detail of the alleged sundry charges and to the surprise of the complainant the opposite parties allegedly increased the load from April, 2008 and calculated the amount as per load factor and claimed the arrears till August, 2009. The meter installed by the opposite party recorded correct consumption so there is no question of charging the amount as per load factor. The complainant has written many letters to the opposite parties and requested to withdraw the said notice but the opposite parties threatened to disconnect the connection which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of the complaint. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 22.1.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was alleged among other things that as the complainant requested the opposite parties to enhance the load from 38.93 KW to 40.92 KW so the opposite parties did the same. The bill has been charged as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. The units consumed in a calender year will be calculated on the basis of sanctioned load or connected load which ever is higher. As the load of the complainant was enhanced to 40.92 KW, so the bill has been sent accordingly. The opposite party is entitled to recover the annual minimum charges from the complainant if the total number of units consumed in the whole year is less than those would have been consumed if the lamps had been lit on an average of 8 hours per night over the whole year, the opposite party would charge for the difference between the stipulated units and units actually consumed at the tariff rates. The units consumed in the calender year will be calculated on the basis of sanctioned load or connected load which ever is higher. So, on the above basis the present bill was sent to the complainant. The complainant was duly informed vide letter dated 8.9.2009 to deposit the amount. The amount has been calculated on the basis of LDHF formula. The complainant has entered into the agreement with the opposite party and in the said agreement also it has been mentioned that the opposite party is entitled to recover the difference between the stipulated units and the actually consumed units at the tariff rates. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1, copy of resolution Ex.C-2, letter No. 1632 dated 21.1.2009 Ex.C-3, copy of memo No. 2590 dated 8.9.2009 Ex.C-4, copy of letter No. 655 dated 9.9.2009 Ex.C-5, copy of letter No. 699 dated 24.9.2009 Ex.C-6, copy of letter No. 700 dated 24.9.2009 Ex.C-7, copy of letter No. 709 dated 29.9.2009 Ex.C-8, copy of receipt dated 22.1.2009 Ex.C-9, copy of receipt dated 20.2.2009 Ex.C-10, affidavit of Pitamber Kumar Ex.C-11, copy of bill dated 12.9.2009 Ex.C-12, copy of letter dated 29.9.2009 Ex.C-13, copy of letter dated 8.10.2009 Ex.C-14 and closed its evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh SDO Ex.R-1, copy of agreement Ex.R-2, copies of bills Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-17, calculation sheet Ex.R-18, calculation statements Ex.R-19 and Ex.R-20 and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 15.9.2010.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file.

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the complainant council resolved to increase the connections to street lights in the town and consequently there has been increase in the existing load from 38.93 KW to 40.92 KW vide letter dated 21.1.2009. However, due to financial crunch and other problems being faced by the complainant council it could not increase street lights electricity connections. However, opposite party has sent a highly inflated bill of Rs. 3,04,310/- showing therein a sum of Rs. 2,49,807/- as sundry charges illegally and unlawfully. Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,49,807/- alongwith current charges with the opposite party under protest. As there is no change in the consumption of the complainant so question of payment of sundry charges does not arise at all. Therefore, complainant is entitled to the relief claimed by a direction to the opposite parties to withdraw its notice/bill dated 12.9.2009 for a sum of Rs. 3,04,310/- with a further relief of refund of Rs. 2,49,807/- of course with compensation and litigation expenses.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has however contended that pursuant to the agreement for street lighting Ex.R-2 entered into between the complainant council and the opposite parties, complainant is bound to pay the bill raised by the opposite parties. Load of the complainant was enhanced to 40.92 KW from 38.93 KW, so the bill has been sent accordingly. Therefore, complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. There is no denial of the fact that both the parties entered into an agreement for street lighting Ex.R-2. From the calculation sheet Ex.C-4 however it is apparent that amount of Rs. 74,669/- is calculated in the first para thereof on account of consequent enhancement of load of 38.93 to 40.92 KW, so no fault can be found with it. However, calculation of further amount in the second para thereof cannot be countenanced in so far as it has considered the fact of enhancement of load from April, 2008 to January, 2009 on the basis of enhanced load. In our considered opinion in the light of evidence on record charges are required to be calculated on the basis of 38.93 KW previous load for a period from April, 2008 to January 22, 2009 and from 23 January, 2009 onwards up to 8/2009 it should be arrived at keeping in view of the enhanced load of 40.92 KW. In this view of the matter, complaint filed by Municipal Council, Jaitu District Faridkot is partly accepted. Accordingly, opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2,49,807/- charged as sundry charges in the bill/notice dated 12.9.2009 and to issue revised bill to the complainant on the basis of period from April, 2008 to January 22, 2009 on the basis of 38.93 KW Load and for period thereafter till August, 2009 on the basis of the enhanced load of 40.92 KW, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Any amount, if already deposited by the complainant with regard to above mentioned charges of Rs. 2,49,807/- raised vide notice/bill dated 12.9.2009 as sundry charges with the opposite parties, be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in their revised/next bills. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 29.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)